Anonymous Denies Sony Claims of Disruption, Credit Info Theft 275
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, in a letter to Congress, Sony detailed the steps they were taking to resolve the issues that have been plaguing them since the PlayStation Network and SOE online components were hacked, claiming to have found evidence linking the crime to Anonymous. Now, Anonymous has responded."
No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Anonymous has responded.
No, one person has responded. As has been touted many many many times by people on Slashdot whenever news organizations do it, there is no central authority, there is no registered list. So yes, while that clique may not have done it, does not mean another clique didn't.
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, some part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" didn't penetrate Sony's network, but some other part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" did. But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If they did any good it was purely a side effect that occurred while they were getting their lulz.
Re: (Score:3)
Which doesn't detract from the good itself.
One sides lulz (like busting Gary for example) might well be a laugh, but for me it shows a wonderful insight that many more people need to see.
I don't care what the reason is for a good action with a good outcome. The end result is the same.
Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)
Which makes the good they do that much sweeter.
Noble intent is fleeting and often unreliable as a motivation. Lulz are forever.
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)
they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us.
I thought this was about Anonymous, not Wikileaks. Anonymous in particular and 4chan in general has not brought to light anything I'm aware of except tentactle porn torrents.
Or have all Slashbot favorite entities merged into one? We can call it GNU WikiBuntuDroidNonymous. Like "Muad'dib" becoming a killing word, its very name will become a nerd totem of +5 Righteousness and +20 Defense Against Potential Girlfriends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous released material that ACS:Law accidentally posted on its web site, which saved thousands of people in the UK from being intimidated and threatened with bogus copyright infringement claims. It lead to the fall of a borderline criminal (Andrew Crossley). How is that different from the stolen material that Wikileaks publishes? At least the ACS:Law material has had real tangible benefits to ordinary people.
Re: (Score:2)
Halle Berry gave them a blowjob
Insha'Allah
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.
Where do i sign up?
Bonus points if Samuel L. Jackson is also in the room screaming " motherfucker, do you type it?"
Re: (Score:2)
bah, slashdot ate my tags
$PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE motherfucker, do you type it?
Re: (Score:2)
No, some other part might have done it.
Apologies if this rapes your fanboi sensitivities, but Sony offering "proof" means precious little to me until independent, competent entities have reviewed it.
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Interesting)
This brings up some interesting questions about the Anonymous collective. If some Serbian hacker who wanted credit cards, and does not participate in any of the IRC/BBS/etc that "Anonymous" hangs out in, claims to be Anonymous, is he? Do you need to hold any of the (loosely defined) common values that Anonymous tends to, in order to be properly considered Anonymous?
I understand that the implication in this case, however, is that some members of Anonymous are claiming that this was done by a person or group who would not self-identify as Anonymous; rather, this person or group merely wants to make it look like the loose-collective "Anonymous" performed the hack in order to shift attention away from themselves and towards others who would self-identify as Anonymous.
Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous was never really about spreading a message anyway. It's just for amusement. The chief past-time of the group is pulling elaborate pranks and sharing jokes and stories.
I found it particularly annoying when people started referring to Anonymous as a group that was formed to combat Scientology. Making fun of Scientologists is amusing, but pretending that Anonymous has some sort of credo or mission or organization of any kind whatsoever is just annoying and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Insightful)
i'd contend that if nobody shared their intention with others, then there was no acting as a group.
even if "the leader of anonymous" performed this data grab, if they didn't tell anybody there's no way you can say "anonymous did it".
so IRC chat logs, postings on anonops or whatever they call it, etc. it's a trivial matter to look this stuff up if you want to find it.
if there's no sign of these places discussing hacking into PSN and stealing member's details, you can be pretty sure that Anonymous didn't do it.
i believe they've actually stated early on that their DDoS was hurting PSN users, and they didn't want that - they wanted to hurt Sony, but not gamers. so they changed their strategy (or at least, issued a statement saying "if you're DDoSing PSN, plz stop lol kthxbai", which is as much authority as anon can have over its own members).
of course, some internet tough guy might have got in during the anon attacks, who identified as anonymous, and decided to take it upon him/herself to steal shit and leave a calling card on behalf of his group. remember there's a lot of misfits out there.
Re: (Score:2)
So all Sony has to do is post a few messages in /b/ claiming to be Anonymous hackers, throw in a bit of insider knowledge just to add credibility, and they have an instant scapegoat. Internet terrorists did it! We are the victims!
All this tells me is that Sony either has no clue who did it and is tying not to look totally incompetent, or does know who did it and doesn't want the fact that it was professional criminals who are bound to use the data to commit mass fraud on millions of people's identities and
Re:No they havent (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.
With respect to this case, the entire body of evidence linking Anonymous with this intrusion is nothing more than a single file that Sony "claims" to have found on their system. Even "if" this file actually existed, and was found rather than "placed" by Sony employees, it's is analogous to finding a business card on the bank floor after a heist has taken place.
Regardless of who actually penetrated Sony's systems, there is a serious issue that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves. Sony wasn't minding the shop. Independent researchers informed Sony of their vulnerable systems and Sony ignored them. If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her. Now in the case of Sony it isn't much different, except for them they aren't just opening themselves up for abuse, they are opening up everyone of their customers whom entrusted them with their exploitable financial data.
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."
And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.
Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we watched two different versions...? There was an actual hacker that committed the first incident--the kidnapping of the head of Serano--named Aoi who was inspired by the discovery of a file deep within the net detailing rampant corporate corruption. Aoi put a voice to what might be considered the original Laughing Man, the author of that file. He manipulated (puppetted) some and inspired many others to take up the cause of truth becoming a Laughing Man type. A corrupt group in the government t
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."
And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.
Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.
To my knowledge the imagining of "Stand-Alone Complex" was to use the same plot as that present in the OAV, but this time the mystery hacker was never caught and never truly identified like he was in the movie (although there he merged with the Major rather than being "caught" in a strict sense). The team only ever found copycats of the Laughing Man, but there was an actual true Laughing Man -- which is why they talk about the Original Laughing Man Incident so much. He (it?) was real. He just got away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her.
No, a stupid victim is not responsible for the immorality of their attacker. If think what you are trying to say is that Sony failed to apply due dilligence, which AFAIK is yet to be proven.
Re:No they havent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.
No it isn't, in a stand alone complex there is no 'us' unlike with Anonymous who's media releases reference 'we' or 'us' and the actions of participating individuals are far from being unrelated like they are in a stand alone complex.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't, in a stand alone complex there is no 'us' unlike with Anonymous who's media releases reference 'we' or 'us' and the actions of participating individuals are far from being unrelated like they are in a stand alone complex.
You sure about that?
If you are, you must be one of the participating individuals, and it a position to verify that all the actions by "Anonymous" to date have been by your group and not by copy-cats like in SAC. If you aren't, then you have no possible way of knowing if they are or not.
Not necessarily, particularly since a SAC is not a copy-cat, and even then this isn't copy-cat behavior, it's just attributing different actions with different ends to one name with knowledge of the other actions and ends attributed to that name, that is nothing like a stand alone complex.
Either they are one group of people (maybe not always the same individuals) doing many different things or many different groups of people doing many different things and attributing it to the one name, neither makes it a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Durarara! Is far closer to the story of Anon (and specifically moot) than GiTS or GiTS SAC.
Other than that I share the same sentiment.
Interesting name for a group (Score:3)
Re:No they havent (Score:5, Informative)
Sony alleges that 'Anonymous' did it; that clearly implies the flavor of the group that has become surprisingly centralized for such a decentralized organization. That core group is presumably the one that responded. Within this context, 'Anonymous' must mean the somewhat centrally led version, otherwise the central question ('Did Anonymous do this?') isn't even well posed.
Put another way, if the allegation itself can't even be properly bounded, it doesn't really need to responded to. And if Sony can't do better than 'Anonymous did it', they certainly won't get to issuing subpoenas, asset seizures, or criminal charges anyway, making the point moot anyway.
Basically, put up or shut up, Sony. You need better evidence than 'Kilroy was here'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What did you expect, something that large and coordinated is just a random flash mob?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know if this was the response of just one person: the linked article was purportedly written by a company called Anonymous Enterprises LLC (Bermuda). Now I'm too lazy to do any more research on that (I leave that to the experts) so I can't tell who is behind that company. But somehow, somewhere one or more individuals have apparently set this up, and the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.
This whole "Anonymous" movement, apparently largely concentrated around 4chan, is, well, ano
Re: (Score:2)
So what? The kind of people who know that Anonymous can't disclaim involvement with certainty also didn't buy Sony's accusations in the first place.
The kind of people that would be fooled by Sony's baseless accusations are also clueless enough to demand "official" word from Anonymous.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the people behind the DDoS and the people behind the break in weren't the same since a DDoS makes breaking in next to impossible, with the service being denied and taken offline and all t
Re: (Score:2)
Deflection (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame your own incompetence on a well known public entity. A trick as old as the hills.
Re:Deflection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? That's more plausible than anonymous doing it. I suppose it's because Sony has no credibility with the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
No credibility with the general public?
The general public, and their customers, have largely complained about Anonymous hacking PSN. This is one of the main reasons that this "sect" released a press release. The general slashdot crowd may not believe a word Sony says, but that is not representative of the general public.
It's also not hard for the general public to believe they are behind it, because they have heard of the HBgary hack and the DDoS on Sony, don't know or don't care of the motivations.
Also, yo
Re: (Score:2)
the hills have eyes, and they're alive with the sound of music.
Derp (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Derp (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.
Sure, so you claim. Mr. Anonymous.
We'll take your word that Anonymous can't be trusted, because obviously, you can be trusted. After all, you admit to being the man inside.
Nice try, but you didn't impress anyone here, 'cept the stupid mods who don't know any better.
Re:Derp (Score:4, Funny)
Soooo.... you post on 4chan.
Re:Derp (Score:5, Insightful)
$ echo "We are legion" > Anonymous.txt
Should I call the FBI now and get them to investigate an "intrusion perpetrated by Anonymous"?
Seriously, if you think a text file left behind is proof of anything, I hope you never get called into jury duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Derp (Score:5, Interesting)
While the DDOS-attack does seem like it was very likely Anonymous, the credit breach doesn't quite seem their style. Anonymous tends to be in it to make Sony look bad - if they had stolen 100 million PSN accounts, I'd expect to see 100 million PSN accounts up on The Pirate Bay pretty quick. I'd expect a statement bragging about how easy it was, how lax Sony's security was. I wouldn't expect for-profit identity theft. Stealing credit card info seems a step or two above "doing it for the lulz."
I could be wrong. It would definitely be wrong to put Anonymous above suspicion; they have a motive and and the ability. It just doesn't seem like their MO.
Re:Derp (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets stranger. According to their recent updates for the SOE hack, the hackers used 'sophisticated means [...] to cover their tracks'.
Why go to a lot of trouble to cover your tracks, yet purposely leave a file implicating Anonymous? Either the access was done over a period of time, and the tracks were covered to keep continued access (not something I'd imagine Anonymous would care to do), or the evidence was left to divert investigators away from the real source of the hacks.
Leaving behind a calling-card then letting Anonymous make 2 statements (one when the PSN outage first began) that they weren't responsible, without releasing a counter-statement claiming responsibility and acting on behalf of Anonymous, suggests that this person is either so on the fringe of association with Anonymous they have no contact with other members, or they're trying to pass suspicion/investigative efforts/blame to Anonymous.
Any way you look at it, you can't blame the greater body of Anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is not, why should anyone trust the word of Anonymous, the real question is why should anyone trust the word of Sony any further? Sony has repeatedly shown incompetence on a vast scale, their prosecution of various Playstation hardware hackers and such in the past has show a strong lack of ethics, and their earlier relationship with Anonymous gives Sony a major reason to lie this time. If Sony were anything except a for profit corporation, were Sony a political organization, even if it we
Re:Derp (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I was tracking defacement attacks for a while. For the ones I investigated, I found that the "evidence" they left behind rarely if ever really corresponded to the actual hacker. I saw so many "Chinese" and "Russian" defacement, that could be easily traced to kids in the US, especially during school vacations.
Hell, if I just broke into Sony's network, stole a metric fuck-ton of passwords and credit card credentials, I'd sure as hell leave behind some "evidence" that pointed towards someone else. What'd they expect? "Hi, I just broke into your server. My name is JW Smythe. My address is 14 Hacker Way, New York, NY, 10011. Come by and visit me any time. I'll be buying Internet porn with all these stolen cards, so knock before you come in."
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it can't be discredited either. Are you saying we should just take Anonymous at their word simply because they deny it? I'm not saying Sony's response or initial security wasn't pathetic, because it was, fact still remains it was *probably* Anonymous, especially when looking at the timeline of events.
Lysander7, despite showing no evidence to prove it, you and I both agree that we should assume there's a good chance you broke into my house. Sure, there's no proof, but we can't discredit that I claim I found your name on a piece of paper in my house.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you should take them at their word.
Whose word? I thought that was the whole point of "Anonymous."
99.99% of however the hell you define "Anonymous" could have been uninvolved and 0.01% could have been been the perpetrators - how do you determine then if "Anonymous was involved?"
The strength of "Anonymous" is its untraceability in attacking things. The weakness of "Anonymous" is its inability to speak a coherent message because... the group is by design not coherent, with a single voice. This is precisely the reason that anarchic groups like
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely the reason that anarchic groups like Anon are very good at tearing things down, but very bad at building things up where you need to work together and follow a single voice or a common plan.
I disagree. Anonymous has certainly demonstrated their willingness and ability to use their coordinated numbers for both good [wired.com] and evil [henryjenkins.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Were they the American Sony servers, or the Japanese servers? If it's the American servers, the burden of proof falls upon the defendant to prove they didn't do something. Don't get all confused by those pesky laws, law enforcement and the courts don't.
Re: (Score:2)
People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.
I just searched my trash can and found a piece of paper proving you broke into my house. It said, "I am Lysander7. Derp." I'm not going to produce the paper, but I think I'll point it out in a press release and accuse you of breaking into my house.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And being that you posted the same phrase, that means you are part of the group "Anonymous". Congratulations, now we know who the evil "Anonymous" group is.
In other news, the tide goes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. There is an invisible being in the sky who will torture your soul for all of eternity if you don't talk to him, but he really loves you. And if that isn't clear enough, it was God who did it. God hates Sony and the Japanese, and especially all those heathe
Re: (Score:2)
This is no proof at all, a one liner on the command line produces such a file.
Re: (Score:2)
So when there is a murder and you find 'Osama was here' written in blood on the wall it's an open and shut case?
Re: (Score:2)
A text file containing a well known meme is verifiable evidence that Anonymous, a random mob mostly consisting of /b/tards and script kiddies, hacked not only PSN but other Sony on-line services in a way that went undetected for some considerable period of time and which was apparently so sophisticated that fixing the hole is taking weeks? And once inside rather than engaging in epic lulz they quietly stole personal data and credit card details, and then unlike every other hack Anon ever did failed to post
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think that this has come about due to someone at Sony saying that the act was done by "an anonymous hacker" being misunderstood as "an Anonymous hacker".
But Anonymous says it isn't top-down organized (Score:4, Informative)
They're like-minded individuals who coalesce to serve a shared whim at a particular time. If so, then it is indeed difficult to pin any particular action or crime upon its body for prosecution, but at the same time it is equally difficult, if not more so, to unpin any accusations. I think we're seeing here one of the downsides to organizations whose structure of responsibility is nearly flat, where not only does the left hand not know what the right is doing, each hair on each finger doesn't know what the rest are doing. In light of their historic antics, those who align themselves with Anonymous fight an uphill battle to shed themselves of ill-repute whenever any such indictments surface. But they get no remorse from me -- it's a choice they've made and a reality they have to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
oops, i meant they get no sympathy. I knew I shouldn't have been typing that fast :(
Re: (Score:2)
Yet for many other attacks they do claim/admit responsibility. They sometimes even announce it in advance. Their communication channels are no secret, anyone can listen in if they like to do so, to keep track of what Anonymous is up to.
Credit card theft doesn't go together with loosely banded idealistic movements. That is for professional thieves, usually operating alone or in tightly closed small groups, as there is profit to be made for them. Those thieves may again align themselves with Anonymous of cou
Re: (Score:2)
No Plausible Deniability (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that *anyone* can be Anonymous. If that's the case, Anonymous can't prove that Anonymous didn't do it.
Re: (Score:3)
They have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on the Anonymous channels, then it's not an Anonymous activity. According to the article linked, they invite journalists into their channels.
Re:No Plausible Deniability (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says those people make the rules? How does one impose order on an anarchist organization?
Re:No Plausible Deniability (Score:5, Informative)
Some of them have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on those Anonymous channels, then it's not activity of that branch of Anonymous. According to the article linked, some of them invite journalists into some of their channels.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
So far the messages released by Anonymous have been fairly consistent. I'd like to see some stylistic analysis to see how many different people the releases have come from. Sure you can say "anyone can be or pretend do be Anonymous", but so far it looks to me like they have been acting more as a group than as diverse factions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WHO responded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.
If your DDOSing the server, wouldn't it make it a little hard to hack into that computer? How are you able to hack in the computer when it's being overwhelmed with fake requests?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is to Ddos after the fact, to cover your tracks and to tie up the resources that would otherwise be responsible for noticing your breach.
ah, yes, didn't think of that.
thanks.
Anonymous (Score:2)
Take a look at recent events. American SEALs assassinate OBL despite a 30YO executive order banning such actions. No trial, no jury. Just straight to the execution. The legality of it is worthy of being questioned - but the vast majority o
AnonOps is not the broader 'anonymous' (Score:2)
what this article is saying is that the 'AnonOps' group had no involvement in the stealing of sony data, even if an anonymous hacker did
Sony didn't blame the 4channers (Score:2)
They said they found a file called "Anonymous" with "We Are Legion" inside. They didn't draw conclusions. At question 7 when asked if they know of the individual(s) responsible for the break-in, they say "no".
Please stop misreporting this just to troll your readers.
Sony gave factual answers, when the allegedly well-informed tech press can't even read it without stating information that wasn't in the release, what chance is there for accurate info to get out?
Reason to hate Sony (Score:2)
The worst part of this whole thing is that something like 1 in 10 people in North America at the very least probably have SOME motivation in their background to do something like this to embarrass Sony without having to get Anonymous involved.
Generally a higher portion of those 1 in 10 would be tech savvy folks. I would expect 50% or greater(almost all of the people I know that boycott sony would be in the "tech savvy" group, based on that anecdotal evidence I'd estimate 90%+ but since I'm pulling numbers o
Sony: It were Anonymous, guv, honest (Score:2)
“We discovered a file [newstechnica.com] making a clear reference to ‘Username unknown,’” the company said in a letter to the US Congress on Wednesday, “and a blank user icon which therefore was ... anonymous! D’you see what that means? It means George Hotz and his hacker friends are loathsome criminal masterminds! So obviously we can’t be held liable for negligence in the face of forces like these. In conclusion, give us money.”
Reminds me of Hamas (Score:2)
Not that Anonymous are terrorists -- far from it.
But one of the challenges in making peace with loose organizations like Hamas, Mahdi Militia, or the IRA -- just to give a few examples -- and while the leadership of the organization legitimately wants a cease fire, they're not in control of their members. If some guy becomes disillusioned by a peace deal and wants to bomb something, he's going to and the organization he or she is part of can't stop them.
I wouldn't put it past them to be the same thing here
Now they have gone too far... (Score:2)
I haven't been able to log into EQ in days. Clearly, this "Anonymous" is a terrorist organization that seeks to strike at core American values. Seal Team Six is on the way.
Ooops...does this mean I've blown my anonymity? Guess I'll just have to confiscate /.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'd like to think both Sony and Anonymous are unforgivable assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to see it more as:
Sony: lawful evil
Anonymous: chaotic neutral
Re: (Score:2)
At least they are predictable and can be controlled
Not when they make the laws (or, at least, can have them cut-to-fit).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know you are not Anonymous cleverly disguising yourself as a coward?
I can imagine the court case (Score:2)
Have you ever posted anything as Anonymous or any variation of that name?
uhh. Yeah. I guess so.
Guilty! Bam!
Building a case against Anonymous is like chasing your own shadow to the end of the rainbow.